that Nidal Hasan's death by firing squad would be public and available to watch. The announcement prompted intense backlash, including from several Republicans in Congress.
On a trip to Ohio, a reporter asked Vance, who is Catholic, how the plan to livestream the execution meshes with his faith.
"So whatever the controversy is about the method of the execution, I hope that people don't forget that this is a guy who brutally murdered a lot of innocent people," Vance said. "Now that said, I mean, look, if it's ultimately livestreamed, I'm not going to be watching it."and policies that are broadly acceptable to the public at any given time.)
The good news is that Vance's priorities do not include blood lust. The bad news is that the execution still may be livestreamed.
Many Americans would enjoy watching it. Decades ago, before I stopped watching movies for unrelated reasons, some of the films I would attend would feature bad guys and good guys, of whatever sort. There would come a time when the bad guys would be killed by the good guys, and the theatre audience would erupt in applause. That was expected, arguably normal, but disquieting.
And now we have an Administration which routinely inflicts cruelty for the sake of cruelty. It may be destroying food intended for hungry and dying people abroad, immigration enforcement seemingly intended to separate children from their parents, firing federal workers so that they can be "traumatically affected," or.... well, there isn't enough time in the day to go down the list.
Hegseth boasts "we'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public, because people need to understand that there's serious consequences for these types of things."
Execution of Hasan- a terrorist, remember- would be the news of the day, perhaps of the week, even if not livestreamed or televised. That would be the case unless President Trump diverts our attention with something else outrageous in the hours afterward, which would be defeating the purpose of encouraging individuals to view it.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the primary objective of Hegseth/Trump in turning the execution into a spectacle would be to deter other acts of murder, terroristic or not. Most likely, the production would have little or no effect on violent acts, and "little" is on its way out the door. If there were any impact, it probably would be in the opposite direction. Individuals contemplating violent crime might savor the possibility of becoming famous, even though they wouldn't be around to enjoy the full effect of the social media high. Notoriety in death would be an incentive- not to many, but to enough as to overwhelm whatever trivial deterrent effect there might be.
This tweeter, "a 9/11 widow" whose "husband was murdered by terrorists in the South Tower," understands fully. In part, she explained
Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood. He was convicted by a military jury and sentenced to death. He should be held accountable under the law.
My objection is to turning his death into entertainment or political spectacle.
I don’t need to watch a man die. I don’t need to cheer it. And I certainly don’t need to do either to prove that I am strong, patriotic, or tough on terrorism.
After 9/11, our country made choices in the name of fighting terrorism, including torture,that had profound consequences for the pursuit of justice. 25 years later, the men accused of planning the attack that murdered my husband still have not gone through a completed trial.
That experience has made me more committed to the rule of law, not less.
You can support the lawful punishment of Nidal Hasan and still believe that an execution should not become a public spectacle. Those positions are not contradictory.
And you can believe in compassion and human dignity without being weak.
I have lived with the consequences of terrorism for 25 years. I will not allow anyone to tell me that refusing to celebrate another human being’s death makes me weak.
Don’t mistake humanity for weakness.
